The United States Constitution is a living document in that it can be changed—but not without the majority of Congress’s approval. Since its inception, there have been more than 11,000 proposed amendments, but only 33 have made it out of committees and been sent to states for ratification. Of those 33, only 27 have been ratified and become a part of the Constitution. Ten amendments were accepted in 1791 (just three years after the document was put into effect); those amendments became known as the Bill of Rights.
Among those first ten amendments is the often quoted and frequently contested second amendment. In light of recent events and gun-related crime, many argue that it is time to alter the second amendment while others argue that this particular amendment guarantees a right that is irrevocable.
In 2014, the Washington Post proposed the addition of the words “when serving in the militia” to eliminate the debate. The second amendment would then read: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms [when serving in the militia] shall not be infringed.”
Now, synthesize information from at least three of the sources and incorporate it into a coherent, well-developed( At least 500 word ) essay that argues a clear position on whether or not the second amendment should be altered to include any type of restrictive language.
Make sure your argument is central; use the sources to illustrate and support your reasoning. Avoid merely summarizing the sources. Indicate clearly which sources you are drawing from, whether through direct quotation, paraphrase, or summary. You may cite the sources as Source A, Source B, etc., or by using the descriptions in parentheses.
Do you need help with this assignment or any other? We got you! Place your order and leave the rest to our experts.